Animal Liberation Front threatens primate researcher


Pangloss
#31
Getting back to the topic at hand:

The ALF is committing an act of hypocrisy - perhaps unwittingly. They are threatening and terrorizing a primate (the human researcher) in order to get him to stop harming primates.

I'm with Peter Singer on this one - I wonder if there is any actual ethical divide between all of us primates, and indeed most of the mammals.

Would I kill someone to stop them from inflicting fatal harm to a primate of a different species? Maybe, in the heat of the moment, I might.

But certainly this premeditated campaign of harassment and cruelty and punishment conducted by the ALF is unethical and indefensible.

Pangloss

BTW, I'd save the child, not the kitten - the question is moronic.

- p
Last edited by Pangloss; Aug 10th, 2007 at 04:27 PM..Reason: Spelling
 
Pangloss
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Interseting how you never answered my questioned, it's a no brainer for me, I would save the child.

Be it know that tamarian thinks smoking around kids is okay along with smoking while pregnant.

Let me guess.....tamrian is a weak minded smoker who hasn't the guts to quit.

Avro - just to point out the crushingly obvious - personal attacks are the universal sign of having lost the argument to stronger reason and are a last ditch attempt to score cheap shots.

If that wasn't what you were trying to signal - well then you need to start working on your rhetorical skills.

Pangloss
 
Cosmo
#33
Ahhh Avro ... some of us may be smokers, but at least we can quit. When you're nasty natured there ain't much that ya can do. Condolences, lad.
 
Avro
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

Avro - just to point out the crushingly obvious - personal attacks are the universal sign of having lost the argument to stronger reason and are a last ditch attempt to score cheap shots.

If that wasn't what you were trying to signal - well then you need to start working on your rhetorical skills.

Pangloss

Anybody who signs out with their net name is a retard.
 
Avro
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by CosmoView Post

Ahhh Avro ... some of us may be smokers, but at least we can quit. When you're nasty natured there ain't much that ya can do. Condolences, lad.

I did quit.
 
Avro
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

Getting back to the topic at hand:

The ALF is committing an act of hypocrisy - perhaps unwittingly. They are threatening and terrorizing a primate (the human researcher) in order to get him to stop harming primates.

I'm with Peter Singer on this one - I wonder if there is any actual ethical divide between all of us primates, and indeed most of the mammals.

Would I kill someone to stop them from inflicting fatal harm to a primate of a different species? Maybe, in the heat of the moment, I might.

But certainly this premeditated campaign of harassment and cruelty and punishment conducted by the ALF is unethical and indefensible.

Pangloss

BTW, I'd save the child, not the kitten - the question is moronic.

- p

The question proves who you think is superior....long live mankind.
 
Twila
#37
Quote:

long live mankind.

To bad mankind is running full out towards it's own destruction.
 
Cosmo
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

I did quit.

Maybe smoking, but not being mean spirited and insulting. Don't think that's a vice. More of a character issue.
 
Avro
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by CosmoView Post

Maybe smoking, but not being mean spirited and insulting. Don't think that's a vice. More of a character issue.

Why? Everything I say is true of smokers.

Weak

Selfish

Stinky

Disease ridden

Litterbugs

Is it mean to be truthful?
 
Twila
#40
Whoa! somebody has a hate on for smokers.....

Careful you don't let that hate eat you up inside....you'll resemble the smokers you hate then.
 
tamarin
#41
Everyone's entitled to a few vices. They make life interesting. The government has decided that no vice has virtue, even if it's a little personal pleasure in a world overstocked with its opposite.
Interesting to see flu researchers this week insist on being research candidates themselves to get past the old and increasingly wobbly paradigm that science infect all other creatures first with something it wants most to study and learn from when it attacks our own.
 
Cosmo
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Why? Everything I say is true of smokers.

Weak

Selfish

Stinky

Disease ridden

Litterbugs

Is it mean to be truthful?

No, its not mean to be truthful but that is your opinion not fact. You have the right to express it -- providing you're not doing so just to insult others. The scorn you weild is a cumbersome and ineffective weapon in your hands. In thread after thread I've watched it swing back and clobber you on the head. You're the one who ends up looking bad, Avro.
 
Avro
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by CosmoView Post

No, its not mean to be truthful but that is your opinion not fact. You have the right to express it -- providing you're not doing so just to insult others. The scorn you weild is a cumbersome and ineffective weapon in your hands. In thread after thread I've watched it swing back and clobber you on the head. You're the one who ends up looking bad, Avro.

It is fact.....sorry but I won't make excuses for people who have a dirty filthy habit.

I've seem no such clobbering, perhaps you can enlighten me smoker of things.
 
Toro
#44
I was about to PM avro to tone it done a little - especially with Cosmo back as a mod - only to find from the time I read avro's post to clicking onto his profile that in those five seconds he'd been banned.
 
Pangloss
#45
Very good.

Pangloss
 
Toro
#46
Its too bad Avro was acting in a manner to get banned because he was pwning this thread.
 
Pangloss
#47
Toro - Avro was "owning" nothing - he was a gainsaying jerk.

Pangloss
 
Minority Observer84
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

We are superior to animals, if a building was on fire and you had a choice of saving a cat in it or a child, which would you choose?

Depends on who's easier to save .
If they are both in equal peril then , I would probably save the child because the cat has a better chance of making it out alone than a child . It's like whether I would choose to save a man or a boy I'd pick the boy not because I believe the man's life is worth less but because he has a better chance of making it out himself than a little boy .
 
Nuggler
#49
So, like, the "Avro"'s been canceled ??

oh ya, screw the ALF

and People Eating Tasty Animals.

 
Zzarchov
#50
I think its a grey area when you start torturing sentient creatures.

And many primates ARE sentient, they have language, tool use and cultures.

While they may not have fire, to this day, not all human peoples have fire. It may seem odd if you think of them as just apes. After all, apes aren't people, its been taught since birth. I've met people who honestly believe black people aren't sentient either, they think they speak as a trained response, like a parrot. It was scary because they honestly believe it. But a five minute conversation should sort that out. You can have a five minute conversation with a primate too, it will hold intelligent conversation with you.

How do you do Aids testing and lock in a cage something that begs you not to hurt it? Something more intelligent than your own young child with a larger vocabulary?
 
tamarin
#51
And if a more intelligent species were to visit here and witness how we run the planet - and we do, and for our own needs and comforts first - what would their reaction be? Maybe we'd all be put in a docket as galactic war criminals.
 
Toro
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Minority Observer84View Post

Depends on who's easier to save .
If they are both in equal peril then , I would probably save the child because the cat has a better chance of making it out alone than a child . It's like whether I would choose to save a man or a boy I'd pick the boy not because I believe the man's life is worth less but because he has a better chance of making it out himself than a little boy .

You would probably save the child?

Are you joking?

No, its nothing like choosing to save a man or a boy. Nothing at all.

That's warped.

Its a ****ing cat!

Its not even a dog, who might try to save you. The cat would scratch your chest running over you to get out the door, leaving you to your fate.
 
Unforgiven
#53
Looks like a pretty good example of abuse of power to me. Agree with the Mod's position or you risk getting banned? That's weak.
 
Twila
#54
Quote:

How do you do Aids testing and lock in a cage something that begs you not to hurt it? Something more intelligent than your own young child with a larger vocabulary?

It takes a special kind of arrogance and a special kind of cruelty. Kind of like what psychopaths and serial killers have.
 
Unforgiven
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by TwilaView Post

It takes a special kind of arrogance and a special kind of cruelty. Kind of like what psychopaths and serial killers have.

Yeah take a trip to any sick kids hospital, talk to the parents of children with terminal illness and then weigh the issue. Then see if you would trade a few hundred animals to relieve people of an illness that would if not for that testing, kill them or leave them with a very short life span that is painful to the end.

There have to be strictly enforced rules about keeping animals for research that ensure that there is no undue stress put upon them. But if it comes to the lives of a few hundred monkeys or rats or what have you to save the lives of millions of sick people, then I'm all for it.

Cosmetic testing can and should be done on people not animals.
 
Twila
#56
Quote:

Yeah take a trip to any sick kids hospital, talk to the parents of children with terminal illness and then weigh the issue. Then see if you would trade a few hundred animals to relieve people of an illness that would if not for that testing, kill them or leave them with a very short life span that is painful to the end.

Why would you assume I haven't been there? And with what I posted below, which is a repeat, you will see why my view about testing on innocents won't change

Quote:

There have to be strictly enforced rules about keeping animals for research that ensure that there is no undue stress put upon them. But if it comes to the lives of a few hundred monkeys or rats or what have you to save the lives of millions of sick people, then I'm all for it.

And we all know how big business listens to the rules and enforces regulations. Hell look at our pharmicuetical company...passing drugs to the public for pofit with insufficient testing.

Look into the fda ok for aspertame.

Look into Unilever and what they test....

We have correctional facilities full of prime specifimens who have given nothing to the society supporting them.
 
Toro
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Looks like a pretty good example of abuse of power to me. Agree with the Mod's position or you risk getting banned? That's weak.

That's not why he got banned. Go back and re-read this thread. The "retard" crack was just one example.

I've known Avro from another board, where he also got banned. I didn't think he'd last long here. Even if he's allowed back, I doubt he'll survive.
 

Similar Threads

5
5
60 Years Of Liberation
by Rick van Opbergen | Sep 19th, 2004
no new posts